Irrefutable proof Z was altered prior to Z133

[David Josephs]

If I understand correctly the BOTTOM sprocket image comes the from the VERY NEXT FRAME in the film... which has been the argument AGAINST alteration... there would be breaks in this sprocket image that do not match the altered frames.... so,

If Zapruder stopped his camera at Z132... the sprocket image at the bottom whould be virtually identical to z131 (which shows a portion of 132)... that is no cars, just the lone motorcycle and street...

Since the camera stops at z132, and the bottom sprocket image comes from the very next frame... there should be no possible way that an image of the motorcade's cars would be in the sprocket area since the cars do not arrive for a few more seconds... turns the corner and Z supposeldy starts filming again.

If the Zfilm continued thru 132 to say 140 before stopping, and we spliced the film at 132, there would still not be any cars in the sprocket area since z133 would have been virtually identical to z132.

So WHY, if Z starts the film again at 133, are there cars in the lower Sprocket area of frame z132, from what SHOULD have been the very next frame, the original z133?

Doesn't this mean that the film ran continuously thru the Elm turn and when spliced at z132/z133,

we now see in z132 what would have been on the VERY NEXT FRAME AFTER THE SPLICE... that is the cars from the motorcade that could not have been on the original z132, since it had not arrived yet?

I spliced the bottom of 132 into the frame of 133... the bottom sprocket image DEFINITELY comes from the NEWLY NUMBERED frame 133... which would have been 2-3 seconds - 30-40 frames after z132 (approx z170 if the film did not stop running)

Doesn't this image of the cars on the motorcade in z132 lower sprocket area - from what would have been 30 or so frames LATER - prove the film was refilmed once the frames between 132 and 133 were removed?

[Craig Lamson]

If I understand correctly ....

You don't.

[David Josephs]

Then maybe you can explain how Z133's IS image makes it onto Z132's lower sprocket area, with no start-up anomilies as we see in 001,

if Z stopped the film and started up again between 132 and 133?

The motorcade cars and lack of start-up coloration suggests that frames were removed between 132 and 133...

as does Zapruder... he does not eve mention stopping his camera and starting again....

Unless YOU have that evidence to share...

Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Edited May 3, 2012 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

Then maybe you can explain how Z133's IS image makes it onto Z132's lower sprocket area, with no start-up anomilies as we see in 001,

if Z stopped the film and started up again between 132 and 133?

The motorcade cars and lack of start-up coloration suggests that frames were removed between 132 and 133...

as does Zapruder... he does not eve mention stopping his camera and starting again....

Unless YOU have that evidence to share...

Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

A waste of time, since your warped world view and silly bias makes you totally unable to to understand the technical issues or even discover your own gross error.

Educate your own self, if you have the ability.

Like I said you don't understand any of this correctly.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

That is very condescending.

If David is wrong then just point out why he is wrong.

David is not a zealot as far as I can see. He is a pretty reasonable person.

LIke I said, he is simply NOT worth the efffort and you are blinded by ideology.

Run along Jim.

[Pat Speer]

If you think David is incorrect, Craig, and wish to set the record straight--for the benefit of OTHERS who may have an interest--than do so.

If you've reached the point where you only want to post to insult people, however, you should do so elsewhere.

[Ian Kingsbury]

David

To simplify the current sprocket image is showing future images in this area

That should not be there yet,and you think the time slip is 30 to 40 frames

Does this occur around 313 to 334 as well , you should run this past Chris Davidson

He had a math anomaly with roughly this amount of time/frame Occurance.

You cannot film what is not there yet.

[Craig Lamson]

If you think David is incorrect, Craig, and wish to set the record straight--for the benefit of OTHERS who may have an interest--than do so.

If you've reached the point where you only want to post to insult people, however, you should do so elsewhere.

Pat, I don't think David is "incorrect", I know he is, however I'm simply not willing to waste my time trying to explain it to those unwilling to learn. There is no forum rule that says you can't tell a poster they are wrong. The data he needs to learn this subject has be posted ad nausem. Look it up.

As for the rest, his record speaks for itself.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

David

To simplify the current sprocket image is showing future images in this area

That should not be there yet,and you think the time slip is 30 to 40 frames

Does this occur around 313 to 334 as well , you should run this past Chris Davidson

He had a math anomaly with roughly this amount of time/frame Occurance.

You cannot film what is not there yet.

The intersprocket sprocket image shows the data from the CURRENT frame plus GHOST data from past and future frames....

Edited May 4, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states:

(I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001."

There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame...

yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133...

the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo.

If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that.

At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade.

Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in

the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario?

According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please.

[David Josephs]

David

To simplify the current sprocket image is showing future images in this area

That should not be there yet,and you think the time slip is 30 to 40 frames

Does this occur around 313 to 334 as well , you should run this past Chris Davidson

He had a math anomaly with roughly this amount of time/frame Occurance.

You cannot film what is not there yet.

As we both know, there is indeed a BREAK from Z340-342, just as Altgens comes into the picture

340-313 = 27

this is 340-341-342... Craig, how does 341 have an UPPER IS IMAGE when 342 does not, given how you created the filmstrip in your post...

shouldn't the bottom of 341 be identical to the TOP of 342? like you are saying the bottom of 132 is the same as the top of 133....

(EDIT: never mind... I see how the IS image under the sprocket hole creates the IS image on lower 341... my mistake. yet there still is a break in the film here...

and was replaced with images from a different film without the sprocket images.... I was wrong at this IS image, Craig... )

that has never been given an explanation.... and yes, Chris and I have discussed this in other threads and directly...

I had offered a post that suggested if the majority of frames were removed PRIOR to 133, in and around 156, 208 and 341 the number of frames

to reduce a 24fps film to an 18 fps film, there would not be that much noticed in the final film.. This is why Towner was spliced and why there is so much mystery in the films related to THAT turn onto Elm...

Is there any single piece of evidence that supports this statement?

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

A question then...

If an altered version of the film is created, with mutliple sections spliced together as we've seen at: 001-132, 133-156, 158-207, 212-340, 342-486 and then a copy is made onto Camera stock instead of print stock... Wouldn't the final product look just like the extant Zfilm... and be on the same media as the original?

Edited May 4, 2012 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

If you think David is incorrect, Craig, and wish to set the record straight--for the benefit of OTHERS who may have an interest--than do so.

If you've reached the point where you only want to post to insult people, however, you should do so elsewhere.

Thanks Pat...

Now shall we see how he addresses my questions to him...

Let me also add that I am working on finding 0184...

and to show that the evidence offered by Zavada, Max Phillips and the Zap timeline will prove that there was an extra copy available THAT DAY, which I believe was the one sent to NPIC and seen by Homer.

Note: Disregard personel (sic) scenes

shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder

is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints

were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.

The third print is forwarded.

Max D. Phillips

Special Agent - PRS

According to Zavada... 2 prints go to Sorrels, a print and MASTER (original?) stay with Zapruder - we know this as Zap shows a COPY of the film on 11/23 at 9am at his office

Stolley leaves with 0183... Zapruder keeps his copy...(0185?) the SS has their two... (0186 is given to the FBI who make copies, & 0187)

We also know that Zap shows Sorrels HIS COPY on 11/24 whle a 16mm version shows up - possibly that night - and is given to McMahon by agent SMITH from Rochester (0184?)

Which 16mm wide, double 8mm print is forwarded by Phillips?

and which Double 8mm, 16mm wide "original" is given to NPIC that weekend?

(btw - shout out to Healy for his great paper on the Technical Aspects of developing, altering and creating copies)

Edited May 4, 2012 by David Josephs

[Josh Cron]

I'm new to the film stuff, so forgive my ignorance David, but isn't Z-341 the frame missing the sprocket image? And what's with the red blurring on the side of the car in 341?

340 and 342 seem to be much more clear images, but 341 has pixelation problems all over the place.

Also, when and where did Zapruder claim he never stopped filming?

[David Josephs]

Hey there Josh...

I have to run right now, but will address your questions and interest shortly... Zapruder never says he stopped filming...

Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

[Craig Lamson]

And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states:

(I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001."

There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame...

yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133...

the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo.

If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that.

At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade.

Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in

the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario?

According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please.

Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck.

Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you.

"First Frame Over-Exposure:

The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.

Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll."

And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this:

"Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised.

What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked.

Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. "

Thanks for proving me correct...again.